ReviewArab journal of urology2018
Laparoscopic renal surgery is here to stay.
Review in Arab journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A bibliometric analysis of the most-cited studies on robotic nephrectomy versus laparoscopic nephrectomy: Citation trends and scientific influence.Investigative and clinical urology · 2026Review
- Role of laparoscopy in the era of robotic surgery in urology in developing countries.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo review the current literature comparing the outcomes of renal surgery via open, laparoscopic and robotic approaches. MATERIALS AND
methodsA comprehensive literature search was performed on PubMed, MEDLINE and Ovid, to look for studies comparing outcomes of renal surgery via open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches.
resultsLimited good-quality evidence suggests that all three approaches result in largely comparable functional and oncological outcomes. Both laparoscopic and robotic approaches result in less blood loss, analgesia requirement, with a shorter hospital stay and recovery time, with similar complication rates when compared with the open approach. Robotic renal surgeries have not shown any significant clinical benefit over a laparoscopic approach, whilst the associated cost is significantly higher.
conclusionWith the high cost and lack of overt clinical benefit of the robotic approach, laparoscopic renal surgery will likely continue to remain relevant in treating various urological pathologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.